I don't agree with the parent commenter, but I find this view to be widely held among lawyers, and I find it distasteful.

A good way to respond to the question: why should banks be subject to this risk? Because ultimately leaks like the one described shouldn't happen, the people affected by them should be swiftly made whole, and it's not hard to see that banks are in a better position to ensure this happens than the individuals themselves.

Just because from the consumer's perspective the bank "covered" the losses, there's no reason the bank should be understood to be forced to just eat those costs. If a company like crypto.com is ultimately liable, then the bank can more effectively pursue action, whether there was 1 person affected or if N of their customers suffered losses. In the event that there were multiple customers affected, those losses can be consolidated, and the bank can pursue the ultimately liable party to recover the costs that the bank had to (temporarily) foot the bill for. They're frickin' banks.